Free Our Data mentioned in Parliament. It’s a start…
We’re gradually trying to get the Free Our Data campaign moved up the agenda: ministerial meetings, civil servants, European comparisons.
But we have to thank Mark Todd MP (see right) for at last mentioning the campaign in the House of Commons, during an adjournment debate on Monday night on the topic of “Public Information (Commercial Use)“.
Even if it was only to dismiss our precept… he said:
I should like briefly to comment on the free our data campaign [our emphasis], which has suggested that the correct path is to distribute Government data virtually for free, or at cost. The difficulty of that model, which relies on the argument that that would generate substantial economic growth and tax revenues that would easily repay the amount lost in revenues directly associated with the sales, is that I am afraid it places a substantial reliance on any Government—not just this one—to continue to fund the development and maintenance of the quality of data in those organisations. At the moment, the organisations have revenue streams on which they can rely to invest into the future. Simply relying on the Treasury to bury its hand into its pocket periodically to develop data into the future is wishful thinking. That is not the path down which we should be treading.
He makes a good point, but then, the Office of National Statistics faces much the same problem. Somehow that can be relied on to be independent…
It is well worth reading the debate, even though the only participants (perhaps the only people who were present?) appear to be Mr Todd and Gareth Thomas, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development. As Mr Todd notes, it’s shaming enough that in trying to get a government minister to respond to PSI questions, nobody seems to be in charge:
One of the difficulties is that a variety of Departments have a role to play; there is no clear, coherent leadership, as was evidenced in the preparations for responding to this debate. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has been passed the parcel of answering at 10.15 or thereabouts, but to be honest the task could have gone to a number of other Ministers. Indeed, I was asked which Minister I thought it appropriate should answer the debate. There is a lack of clarity at that level that needs to be resolved.
His cause is to point out that there’s enormous value locked up in public sector information which ought to be made more visible. We agree; we only differ about the charging methodology.
Then again, the answer from Gareth Thomas does contain something that we find less encouraging:
Given that the trading fund model is well established, the Government believe that we should take the time to look at the issues in some detail. We must ensure that high-quality data continue to be produced, and public sector tasks fulfilled, at the same time as opportunities for the wider economy are maximised. It would be entirely premature to abandon what has been a high-quality data production model without fully exploring the consequences. As my hon. Friend said, the UK has world-class agencies, including Ordnance Survey, the Met Office, the UK Hydrographic Office and the Land Registry. I shall take this opportunity on behalf of the Government to pay tribute to the professionalism, expertise and talent that is housed in each of those offices. We should be careful to avoid destabilising those excellent agencies.
Yes, but we’d hate to think he’s prejudging the outcome of the trading funds study, which will report on November 22.
(Mr Todd’s interest stems from the fact that before becoming an MP he worked for Pearson, and considered or may have set up companies which would have used data – some of it sourced from the public sector. As he says on his biography,
I spent 20 years in the publishing industry starting as an editor of school history books and leaving when I was running the warehouse, customer service and information systems of the UK business of Addison Wesley Longman. Through most of my business career my task was the transformation of previously unprofitable businesses or service functions which were too costly and failing to deliver.
Nice use of Google Maps on his site, by the way… the only pity is that he’s standing down at the next election. Then again, that could be some time away.)
Still, we’ll drop him a line to say thanks. And point out the ONS…
And an extra note for Steve Feldman: we didn’t lobby him..
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Free our data, says Lords info committee (6 August 2009; score: 29.87%)
- DCLG Select Committee snipes at Ordnance Survey; MoD says why not split it up? (7 February 2008; score: 21.83%)
- In the Guardian: what happens to the Postcode Address File in a Royal Mail split ownership? (9 March 2009; score: 20.03%)
- A quick roundup to start the new year (1 January 2009; score: 18.47%)
- Do ministers listen to advisory panels? The one on public sector information (PSI) isn't so sure (8 February 2007; score: 18.22%)
November 15th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
[...] The inspirational Free Our Data blog out of the UK reports on a mention of their efforts in Parliament, where Mark Todd, MP had this to say in argument against: I should like briefly to comment on the free our data campaign [our emphasis], which has suggested that the correct path is to distribute Government data virtually for free, or at cost. The difficulty of that model, which relies on the argument that that would generate substantial economic growth and tax revenues that would easily repay the amount lost in revenues directly associated with the sales, is that I am afraid it places a substantial reliance on any Government—not just this one—to continue to fund the development and maintenance of the quality of data in those organisations. At the moment, the organisations have revenue streams on which they can rely to invest into the future. Simply relying on the Treasury to bury its hand into its pocket periodically to develop data into the future is wishful thinking. That is not the path down which we should be treading. [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
If it is so important that the Government should provide data for free
Why is the Guardian charging for access to its data online?
November 15th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
@A James: two things:
1) you can read any area of the Guardian newspaper that isn’t in the digital archive for free. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk and tell me how often you get charged to read a page.
The Guardian’s digital archive is different: it predates our computer-based production, and so required an extra – costly – effort to digitise. I don’t know the reasoning behind charging for it. Possibly the text will be available on the site for free at some time in the future – though I’m not in the loop on that, and so don’t know.
2) re the government, why should it make data available free? Because we own that data: we’re taxpayers, it’s stuff that is for our benefit, yet it’s locked away from us, its owners. And we argue that it would bring economic benefits to do so – far outweighing the costs in tax of supporting those government-owned agencies.
November 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Guys
I don’t mind if you do “lobby him”
Looks as if he got the matter brought to his attention and then actually thought through the issues about funding and the mythical benefits of free data and came to a sensible (IMHO) opinion.
Incidentally aren’t you going to give up on the economic benefits argument now? i am sure I heard Michael acknowledge that there was no evidence for that line.
Finally in the case of OS “our data” is not locked away it is accessible through a load of public sector web sites including local government, environment agency, transport sites etc and also indirectly through GYM. It just isn’t available free to commercial companies. Now I seem to recall that there are restrictions on scalping the content of the Guardian or BBC sites and reselling without permission, not unreasonable?
Steven
November 19th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Hello Steven,
I don’t know about Charles but I’m not going to give up the economic benefits argument. Yes I’d cheerfully agree with you (and with APPSI, OFT and the Power of Information review) that current empirical evidence is not strong enough to make an unequivocal case for free data. In a sense, it never will be – evidence from overseas is challengeable because countries are by definition unique; a rapidly changing technical environment also gives plenty of ammunition for rubbishing historic studies. In the case of PSI, our science is even more dismal than usual because of disagreements about what value we should place on the stuff.
So, while I’d welcome more research – and especially more international case studies – our economic argument will always involve a bit of an act of faith. But the future’s like that.
I don’t see any point in getting in to discussions here about BBC policy, a subject adequately covered elsewhere in the blogosphere. Right at the beginning of the campaign, we decided that the BBC belongs in a separate category because citizens can choose not to pay for it by not owning a telly.
And the Guardian? Well, as you know – but other posters apparently don’t – the Guardian is a commercial enterprise. (As am I: in fact, as someone who guards his copyright carefully, I’m sometimes startled by the Guardian’s willingness to chuck information around for free, but presumably a commercial judgement – that act of faith – has been made.) Commercial enterprises aren’t in business to help other commercial enterprises, hence the restriction on scalping and selling. That, I think, is where they differ from government, which should be nurturing enterprise not competing with it.
m
November 20th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Steven Feldman, from the very beginning of this Free Our Data campaign, has been an apologist for the currently untenable position of Ordnance Survey and its labyrinthine licenses and bare-knuckled defense of its IP. Not to mention its extortionate fees and its anti-competitive marketplace posture.
One must wonder why an employee of a private sector company, MapInfo, would take such a continuing robust position vis a vis its major monolithic data supplier, OS. And also, Steven Feldman was the chairperson of the recent AGI conferences. Lots of mutual back scratching going on.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Joe, Steven has the grace and intellectual integrity to put his full name to his posts.
He (and Vanessa Lawrence) set out an eloquent case for the status quo at a debate in Westminster last month. An account of the event is now available online at http://www.debatinggroup.org.uk/debates2000s.html . I’m delighted to say that the motion – Government information should be free – was carried.
m
November 20th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Well, yes, I was at that debate. I also attended an earlier presentation towards the beginning of this campaign at the Royal Society of Arts (I think) where Vanessa Lawrence was on the panel and Steven was in the audience, again, with the same agenda i.e. defending the licensing regime of OS and the protectionist stance of taxpayer created data. And, in the early days of this campaign, Steven was a frequent contributor with the same story.
I’m not faulting him particularly but the consistency of his responses over time does make one wonder. And, as much as many of us would like to use our real names when positing considered criticism of Ordnance Survey, for example, we really can’t when our small businesses are dependent on this organisation for our data. The monopolistic position of our data provider coupled with the fact that they can be our competitors in the market, make reprisals not unheard of.
And I am as delighted as you are that the motion – Government information should be free – was carried.
November 20th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Thanks, Joe, I can understand your position. I’ll duck out now as etiquette here is really a matter for the list owner, Charles A.
Thanks again for your support.
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Joe
Quite strong stuff. Without being too “robust” let me explain my point of view.
I am not an apologist for the OS, in numerous posts both here and on my own blog I have expressed the opinion that there is much room for improvement. I remain convinced however that the current funding model for OS provides the best option for maintaining the quality data that many organisations rely upon. It is because no one has presented an alternative that I have found credible that I have remained consistent in my opinions.
I would agree with you that some of the OS licensing is complex and very probably unnecessarily so. Defence of their IP, however, is perfectly reasonable behaviour for any organisation, given their current trading fund status I cannot see any alternative option for OS.
Since you have been following my posts on FOD for some time you should have been aware that when i started to post I was MD of GDC, a small privately owned business subsequently acquired by MapInfo. I have always made clear that the opinions that I expressed were my personal views and not those of GDC or MapInfo.
As for chairing the AGI Conference this year, I am not sure what you are suggesting?
Feel free to continue the discussion on my blog if you wish or even to contact me directly. You know where to find me and I promise to respect your confidentiality.
Steven